not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet
brunner at nic-naa.net
Sun Mar 27 15:59:01 CDT 2011
On 3/27/11 4:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Next, on what basis do you make the claim that .coop and .cat have
>> failed to attract the predicted support from their nominal communities?
> Arithmetic, mostly. There are 40,000 co-ops in the United States,
> 160,000 in Europe, and apparently several million world-wide, yet
> there are only 6700 domains in .COOP. I would find it hard to say
> that under 3% takeup was significant support.
Do you attach any significance to the restriction that the .coop
operator has to use non-cooperatives as sales channels and the primary
means of relations with cooperatives as registrants?
I do, I thought we had an initial exemption from the registrar
requirement at the Montevideo meeting, for .museum and for .coop.
Additionally, do you attach any significance to the absence of a
restriction on the incumbent monopoly operator from accepting or
retaining registrations from cooperatives?
Note, that cooperatives with registrations in the legacy monopoly name
spaces could be, but are not, accounted for revenue purposes, as .coop
> The population of Catalonia is about the same as that of Switzerland
> or Hong Kong. There are 47,000 domains in .CAT, over 200,000 in .HK,
> and about two million in .CH. Of those 47,000, about 7,000 have DNS
> on Nominalia's servers, and spot checking suggests most of those are
The Nominalia issue is one registrar. The .cat name space has been
available for only 5 years, the .hk and .ch name spaces since 1986.
The rate of growth for .cat has been 10k/yr for each of five years,
and assuming no changes, will reach the relative densities of western
European national name spaces.
Given our difference in perspectives, and values, I'll stop now.
More information about the NANOG